New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-05-27
TILE COURTS.
THE HOLE IN THE PICTURE WORTH $500.
BUT THE JURY DO NOT PASS ON THE QUESTION

WHETHER SALVADOR ROSA PAINTED IT
Charles p Miller had another opportunity Oh show
ing his profound knowledge Of the fine arts ana INC
old masters Court OF Common Pleas yesteIuhy'
hut he merely recalled two witnesses TO Ieiur'rco
their forIper to the large damages Robert
H etu,ter was entitled ID from tho Manhattan stor
ago Company for injury " his picture. The hrst OF
these Professor Fairman. Of Olivet College, MICH
igan. Mr.. Miller first asked him Ii the value or
picture depended upon its peiigcee its Inherent
artistic merit professor evidently all at sea
as to different breeds OF pictures and the degrees
Of artistic merit that might be born with them, al
though no has good reputation as coAnolsseur III
art. stu his answer, given after moments hesta-
ton only, had tho merit OF proundity the counsel
was evidently seeking "Tho value OF al ant" he
said, "depends upon its ministry to the person who
owns TO- 1t cannot be measured In any different
way" Mr.. Millor accepted this as definite answer
to his question and encouraged the witness to pro,
pompous manner as ii he hid suddenly been elected
to tho 1 man is the loss Of that ministry work Of
art is that ministry, Independent OF Its particular
merit." Now air. Miller was IN his element, and In
%SSS 5S sn RSw about the Hs W anot hS Ss
10 had any bearing on tho case as
tho impress lonisr school The witness answered as
readily as II he had been coached beforehand IAN
gestiOn, out sufficient for the cOnnOseur 70 BIO moved
In his ideas Of nature and TO ace and feel great
deal In Ia As to this particular work, whether it
that "the artistic merits OF picture depend
upon the picture itself and upon the individual who
owns it,"
SIr Miller noxt recalled Robert II. studer, the
plaintiff who SAID Mr. scanlon had tod him IL
salvador Rosa at the time he bought the picture,
and further that no had not told the agents OF tho
company that they could cart II away on an open
truck and he would take the rsk Of damage to 10
Then tho counsel began bls address TO the jury for
the plaintiff and only failed In his EFFORT 70 hefog the
fury still moro by hts evident ignorance OF technical
phrase on art subjects. Bat he boldly asserted that
the testimony OF cxperts such absolutely
worthless. None OF the experts called knew any
thing about the authenticity OF the picture They only
gave their best opinion upon 1t. and such opinions
wero always lie taken with grain Of salt Besides,
tho other side did not pretend that their witnesses,
such men as Avery, Alden Weir and In Fargo, were
experts The only expert In tho case was Giovanni
4. Cayo. who was called for the plaintiff. lie sad
the picture . Salvador Rosa. All the witnesses
had testified that Il old picture beyond
doubt. and that In Europe there were q great many
pictures known as Salvador ROsas that were no
better For himself ho would frankly state that he
did not know n It Salvator Rosa or not, but
he firmly believed Mr.. CalyO when he called it q
Salvador Rosa. Ho merely threw this out ~ sug-
Qeston "Thcro has been no eminent persons called
on this subject whatever" he concluded.
Judge Val HOcseu charged the jury before they
had thne ID reconcile those contradictory statements
and tho Jury went ont for hour 70 consider their
'scrlict They found for the plaintiff for $500
Tho i'm WAS fOl